Midwestern governors sign greenhouse-gas reduction pact 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Patrick Mazza Posted 3:36 am
   15 Nov 2007

   Seeing the MoneyReading the agreement confirms a sense I've had that to get regions to move on climate change they have to see the economic benefits for their region.  It notes that "regional cooperation will help the Midwest respond to and prosper in a carbon-constrained world and maximize the region's comparative energy advantages . . "  Rapidly growing wind and solar sectors, biofuels, coal reserves and geologies that facilitate sequestration.  This is not to get into a debate about biofuels or sequestration, which on this blog could easily generate dozens of posts.  It is to make the point that climate policy needs an economic grounding to make it politically feasible, and so if you have objections to specific areas, like biofuels or sequestration, you need to offer economic alternatives.  I wish we could pass climate policy with carbon caps just because it is morally right and ecologically necessary.  But realistically it will take people seeing the money to get things moving.
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   dbaker Posted 3:36 am
   15 Nov 2007

   The Consent of the Governors " and working to increase the use of biofuels."
   Perhaps biofuels is not the answer!
   Converting Food into Biofuel a 'Crime Against Humanity'  
   http://www.un.org/radio/news/html/14891.html
   Dennis Baker
   
   (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
   
   //
   var l=new Array();
   
   var output = '';
   
   l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[32]='\"';l[33]=' 109';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 99';l[36]=' 46';l[37]=' 108';l[38]=' 105';l[39]=' 97';l[40]=' 109';l[41]=' 116';l[42]=' 111';l[43]=' 104';l[44]=' 64';l[45]=' 51';l[46]=' 48';l[47]=' 48';l[48]=' 50';l[49]=' 114';l[50]=' 101';l[51]=' 107';l[52]=' 97';l[53]=' 98';l[54]=' 115';l[55]=' 105';l[56]=' 110';l[57]=' 110';l[58]=' 101';l[59]=' 100';l[60]=':';l[61]='o';l[62]='t';l[63]='l';l[64]='i';l[65]='a';l[66]='m';l[67]='\"';l[68]='=';l[69]='f';l[70]='e';l[71]='r';l[72]='h';l[73]='a ';l[74]='

   Permalink

3. 

   jhenn Posted 3:56 am
   15 Nov 2007

   Are Regional Pacts a Distraction?The bigger the bureaucracy, the less that's done? It's useful to look at RGGI (the regional greenhouse gas initiative) that was put in place in the North East. While as a political move, RGGI was groundbreaking, moving the discussion about a federal cap and trade system forward, it has not worked as effectively as hoped.
   The Western states are already accomplishing a great deal individually. Would it be better for them to focus on efforts in their states - demonstrating, for example, the viability of a green jobs corps in California - and wait for a federal regulatory system? Or is this the right move?
   Either way, the new pact will only be a success if it doesn't distract from the real work that is being done on the ground.

   Permalink

4. 

   jhenn Posted 3:57 am
   15 Nov 2007

   Just a distraction?The bigger the bureaucracy, the less that's done? It's useful to look at RGGI (the regional greenhouse gas initiative) that was put in place in the North East. While as a political move, RGGI was groundbreaking, moving the discussion about a federal cap and trade system forward, it has not worked as effectively as hoped.
   The Western states are already accomplishing a great deal individually. Would it be better for them to focus on efforts in their states - demonstrating, for example, the viability of a green jobs corps in California - and wait for a federal regulatory system? Or is this the right move?
   Either way, the new pact will only be a success if it doesn't distract from the real work that is being done on the ground.

   Permalink

5. 

   Patrick Mazza Posted 3:59 am
   15 Nov 2007

   Maybe yes, maybe noThere is no "the answer" and there are responsible answers to Ziegler.  But my point is not to open yet another debate on biofuels or sequestration, even though that is the temptation.  Let's try this another way - For the sake of discussion, let's just go ahead and toss out biofuels and "clean coal" and envision an economic agenda for the Midwest that reduces greenhouse gases while it ensures regional prosperity within these parameters. What can we agree on?

   Permalink

6. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 7:08 am
   15 Nov 2007

   Sigh,The problem is that they may very well end up enacting policies that will actually increase net greenhouse gases because they are basing many of their decisions on erroneous, but politically convenient information. Can that be possible? Can our elected officials make such decisions on erroneous information?
   One would be naïve to think otherwise. They voted to commit us to a trillion-dollar war on erroneous information and erroneously assumed it would be quick and easy.
   An independent body of scientists should get the job of determining if their policies will result in a net increase or decrease in global warming. Without something like that, ideas like this will just squander resources and run us in circles. This is primarily a way to pump up their agricultural industries. The studies suggesting that biofuels probably create more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels will be (are being) ignored.
   
   

   Permalink